linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] regulator: fan53555: Add support for RK860X

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8fc46929-6d73-ea75-f44f-b83820c0e5df@collabora.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 14:15:34 +0300
From:   Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@...labora.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Joseph Chen <chenjh@...k-chips.com>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] regulator: fan53555: Add support for RK860X

On 4/6/23 14:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 06/04/2023 12:08, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
>>>> +	}, {
>>>> +		.name = "rk8602",
>>>> +		.driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>> +	}, {
>>>> +		.name = "rk8603",
>>>> +		.driver_data = RK8602_VENDOR_ROCKCHIP
>>>
>>> Why do you need this entry match data if it is the same as rk8602?
>>
>> This is consistent with the handling of syr827 and syr828:
>>
>> 		.name = "syr827",
>> 		.driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
>> 	}, {
>> 		.name = "syr828",
>> 		.driver_data = FAN53555_VENDOR_SILERGY
> 
> Yeah, I understand, but it's not necessarily the pattern we want to
> continue. Unless these devices are not really compatible?

They are compatible, so should I simply drop the rk8601 and rk8603 entries?

Probably also renaming rk8600 and rk8602, though I'm not sure what a
proper naming scheme would be to combine the 2 variants for each.

Thanks,
Cristian